Questions Submitted During the 

November 14, 2013 Public Webinar #2 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule 

Page 1 of 4

1. guest 2: John Bender 

2. Mark Wyzalek: It was stated that the current regulations are insufficient and have not 

protected water quality ; please give specific instances 

3. Michigan Farm Bureau: 131.10(g) and/or (j). Thanks! 

4. Andy: Can the 131.10(g) language be clarified as to which factors on which a UAA may 

be based be revisited periodically after a UAA is granted? 

5. Cindy N: Under the new WQS proposed rule, what time period do the States and Tribes 

have to implement the rule once the final rule is published? 

6. Clair Meehan: I can barely hear Manjali 

7. Jay Olsen: What if highest attainable use is not the best use because of native spieces 

which exist in the water bodie . when uWhat if you manage for a higher use but cause 

drict conflict with native species? 

8. Larry unsworth: turn up the sound please 

9. Yan Wang: The sound is really choppy. But it might be problem on my network. 

10. Michael McIntyre: If you replace one 101(a)(2) use with another 101(a)(2) use, like your 

recreation example, which use is closest to 101(a)(2) uses? 

11. Lori Blair: How many UAAs have EPA ever approved - please do not guess or provide 

imaginary answers - as requirements are getting much more stringent, to the point that 

WQS are not able to be met with the most advanced technology possible [regardless of 

cost] - UAA may be the only way to meet. So how many have ever been approved? 

12. Christine Johnston: Why is the cap set at 10 years? 

13. chris gruenhagen: What is a point source required to demonstrate regarding cost effective 

nonpont source controls? Is it onsite or offsite controls by 3rd parties? 

14. Clair Meehan: We can barely hear Shari 

15. Tim Morrison: We cannot hear her 

16. Susan Alvarez: not yet - we cannot hear the question or the response! 

17. Larry unsworth: There is still a sound problem 
Questions Submitted During the 

November 14, 2013 Public Webinar #2 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule 

Page 2 of 4

18. Erik Galloway: Is theren a time perid designated betweeen variance adoption and new 

permit issued? 

19. Larry unsworth: I have my system maxed out 

20. matthew jabloner: What would a variance look like in WQS? Would it be specific to a 

discharger? e.g. City A has a variance for zinc. 

21. Susan Alvarez: much better :) 

22. Larry unsworth: Thats great!!!! 

23. Betty Yee: If the point of a ten year term on a variance is to allow for review, then what 

is the point of including variances in a triennial review? 

24. Danielle Owczarski: Is a variance based on a non-planned change in water quality or is it 

usually only applied to a project which is linked to a NPDES permit, such as a dredging 

project or restoration? 

25. Julianne Rantala: If a Permittee cannot ever meet a WQS, is a variance an appropriate 

mechanism? That is, technologh does not exist to treat the wastewater to meet WQS, can 

a variance be obtained? 

26. Michigan Farm Bureau: Does the proposed revision of the alternatives analysis include 

economic factors in that analysis to evaluate feasibility of implementation? 

27. Michigan Farm Bureau: --you answered the question--thanks! 

28. Warren Howe: Can we get a copy of the presentation slide by email or download? 

29. Jennifer Hanlon: could you provide some more information on the Tribal Consultation 

webinar - how to register, etc. Thank you. 

30. Michigan Farm Bureau: How often is this provision used in dealing with states WQS 

standards? 

31. Susan Alvarez: whomever is responding needs to get closer to the microphone - we 

cannot hear her response. Thx! 

32. Larry unsworth: What if you have a dried out water way? 

33. Mark Wyzalek: Is the "lowering of water quality" and "alternatives analysis" include 

requiring a pemit limit at a lower concentration even though the water quaility/use would 

not be lessened? 
Questions Submitted During the 

November 14, 2013 Public Webinar #2 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule 

Page 3 of 4

34. matthew jabloner: You mentioned thermal discharges earlier. Could you, briefly, go over 

that again. 

35. Scott Thomas 2: In a case where a state is providing a section 401 certification for a 

Section a 404 permitted discaharge, affecting a Tier 2 water, how does EPA envision an 

antidegradation alternatives analysis relating to alternatives analyses that will be done 

under the 404(b)(1) guidelines and NEPA for the same project? Isn't there potential for 

significant overlap, or possibly different agencies reaching different conclusions? 

36. Doug Krapas: Is the economic analysis annualized costs to States and Tribes to comply 

with the rule revision, or the cost to EPA to approve State and Tribal standard revisions 

to comply with EPA's rule revision, or both? 

37. Larry unsworth: Sorry I have river way that doesn't have any water running in it. Even 

after a good rain there is maybe a flow for about 200 yards outside of town then its 

gone... . . 

38. Larry unsworth: variances I think 

39. Lori Blair: For compliance schedules - does the change also mean that EPA must approve 

compliance schedules or are states only to update their water quality standards code 45. 

Larry unsworth: My info for email is larry.unsworth@gardencityks.us 

40. Erik Galloway: Due to current state and tribal budget shortfalls, is there additional 

funding by EPA (grants or other) that will be avaliable to meet the new requirements? I 

fso has EPA thought of any matching requirements for this funding? 

41. Betty Yee: I would like to understand the three types of variances that are proposed. A 

discharger specific variance is pretty self-explanatory. The discharger will submit all the 

information that EPA expects to see and then the variance will be tailored to the 

discharger. For a multiple discharger variance, the dischargers are supposed to have 

similar issues so the information submittal is very similar to the discharger specific 

variance. A waterbody variance seems very different because there is potentially a 

multitude of dischargers. The proposed regulations have explained that the information 

submittal must include the BMPs for nonpoint sources. So, for the point source 

dischargers, would the information submittal need to explain why each of these different 

discharger types could not implement their WQBELs? Presumably, if this information 

cannot be generated for all the different point source discharger types, would the 

appropriate approach be to submit information for multiple discharger variances? 

42. Betty Yee: Also, how will these variances be implemented? Based on the Great Lakes 

multiple discharger variances, it seems that individual discharger variances do not require 

individual approval by EPA if the state has a multiple discharger variance. Is this how a 

multiple discharger variance will be implemented? Is this also how a waterbody variance 
Questions Submitted During the 

November 14, 2013 Public Webinar #2 

Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Proposed Rule 

Page 4 of 4

to be implemented? 

43. M Mayfield: Thank you for your tie and efforts! 

44. Larry unsworth: Thank you for your time.